Give me one honest, democratic justification for the Superdelegates?

[TDale313]

One that doesn't boil down to these party powerfuls "deserving" to have a vote worth that of 10,000 average voters cause they're just better than us. Why not just go back to having the nominees picked in smoke filled rooms? It's ridiculous.

[bravenak]

1. 1968

[jfern]

9. LOL, that's the argument AGAINST superdelegates

As for 1968, most of the delegates were superdelegates.

[bravenak]

21. Yeah. It was a compromise between populism and smoky backrooms.

Coulda went back to old rich men picking the candidates. If it needs changing it needs to happen in a non election year. Well, at least a non major election year. You do realize the party gets to make up its rules, right? The establishment will always favor itself. Those not a part of party processes will get no say. Working against the party from outside will just get an equal and opposite reaction from the established party. Rule changes come from within, not from left leaning non democrats not liking the party.

Join your local party. Have a say. Get involved. Things do not happen fast in america and the Democratic Party has been around for a long time, that will not change anythime soon.

[jfern]

24. LOL, there's no reason for superdelegates

And the question wasn't why only 20% of delegates should be superdelegates.

[bravenak]

36. Tad Divine created them, ask him

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-soboroff/superdelegate-creator-tad_b_87857.html

[JonLeibowitz]

52. it is true, humans are fallible. One can switch an opinion given new evidence.

[bravenak]

53. Bingo!! I can live without them myself.

[SusanCalvin]

80. When you run for office,

I will vote for you.

[bravenak]

84. I'd lose because I hate liars

And I say stuff in public. But hey, two votes is good enough! Yours and mine!!

[SusanCalvin]

87. Well, I hope for things to change.

I like your two selling points. :

[bravenak]

88. I hope so too!

[jeff47]

14. Wrong year

1972 is the year used to justify superdelegates, since we dumb voters picked McGovern

1968 is exactly what superdelegates are designed to cause - the party overruling the voters.

[bravenak]

22. I meant the televised self destruction.

It looked bad.

[jfern]

27. Again, that is the argument AGAINST superdelegates

What's the argument in favor of them? BTW, about half of superdelegates are white males.

[bravenak]

34. Ask Divine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-soboroff/superdelegate-creator-tad_b_87857.html

[JonLeibowitz]

55. Tad is a good guy for siding with Bernie this time around, but I wouldn't liken him to a god.

[bravenak]

59. Heh. Yep!!!

There are only people here! I wish folks would chill. We can change stuff but it will be establishment rules so Idk if Folks will like any of the changes.

[JonLeibowitz]

61. I heard part of why Sanders keeps campaigning is to force changes to the DNC platform at the

convention. Apparently he is going to try to force the DNC to get rid of superdelegates once and for all as part of conceding at the nomination (as well as killing the TPP). If he succeeds, that will be one good thing to come of it.

[bravenak]

66. You know? I'm fine with that.

They wont get rid of all of them, but I think we should limit them to elected official so no lobbyists get votes. Just our senators and our congress people. We actually vote for them. And they are more likely to not risk their seat on a bad choice at a convention.

[JonLeibowitz]

68. Sure, or do it like the GOP -- 3 per state. one for the state chairman + 2 senators for example.

The other option is give them votes but say their vote must align with the pledged delegate outcome.

[bravenak]

71. Yep. I'm sure we could find many ways to limit the worst of it.

A set amount proportional to population that get elected by popular vote is how I'd like it. So that we know who our delegates are, but they should run only publically financed campaigns so we dont have them buying delegate votes.

[Ken Burch]

110. Ask Divine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_%28performer%29

We can't...she's been gone for years now.

(sorry...it was there).

[bravenak]

112. Haha!! Tad Devine. My bad thats hilarious tho

I loved her. She was badass.

[Ken Burch]

109. Yes, but the problem wasn't that primary voters had too much influence.

The problem was the party bosses(such as Mayor Daley of Chicago) and LBJ imposing Humphrey as a pro-war candidate on a pro-war platform(which Humphrey later moved slightly away from at the end of September, and gained ground sharply in the polls after so doing) and doing so in a way the brutally suppressed open discussion inside the convention hall(there was only one hour...ONE HOUR...of debate time permitted on the Vietnam plank, the only issue of 1968 that really mattered)and brutal suppression of protest in the streets outside.

If you want more information on how this played out, read "Miami and the Siege of Chicago" by Norman Mailer and "McCarthy for President" by Arthur Herzog.

[bravenak]

113. It really hurt the party having that shown on tv

Is all i meant

We can talk about fixing the system, but it wont happen this year and it will STILL favor the establishment bevause they make the rules.

[Ken Burch]

114. You are very right that that spectacle hurt the party.

If you read the books I listed, you'll get a better historical picture of why things were like that in Chicago.

The lesson I take from that disaster is that dissent must never be suppressed and people who are backing the runner-up in any contested primary should never be treated like dirt(as the McCarthy and other antiwar delegates in Chicago were, to say nothing of how those who wanted to march in the streets were treated).

The idea is to find a way to have the debate go on with respect and fairness to everybody, and to have nobody just told at the end of the process that they have to "shut up and get in line".

[Blue_In_AK]

111. That's what I was thinking, too.

[Gothmog]

116. I remember that campaign well

[Ken Burch]

108. 1968 was the party bosses...the superdelegates of the day...overriding the mandate of the primaries

Almost 70% of the voters in the Democratic primaries voted for either Robert Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy, the two progressive antiwar candidates.

After Robert Kennedy was assassinated, the party bosses made it clear that they would not respect the overwhelming vote against the war in Vietnam and for more social spending and imposed Hubert Humphrey, sitting vice president and handpicked successor of the discredited Lyndon Johnson, as nominee.

The result was a Democratic defeat in November that would never otherwise have occurred.

[agracie]

2. List of democratic justifications for superdelegates :

Here ya go:

[Jenny_92808]

3. It should be

One person, one vote!

[TDale313]

5. Yep.

Even Repugs have gotten rid of Superdelegates cause it just looks shady as hell.

[retrowire]

13. Wait, Republicans don't have super delegates?

This is just a Democratic Party exclusive thing?!?!?

[TDale313]

16. No, it's my understanding they don't have Superdelegates.

[retrowire]

35. Well god damnit. I learned something new today.

Here, learn with me!

http://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year

What about in the GOP? Do Republicans get superdelegates, and could they tip the nomination?

The technical answer is that yes, the Republican Party does have superdelegates. However, they function differently for the GOP than Democrats, and in 2016, Republican superdelegates will have way, way less power and autonomy than the superdelegates on the Democratic side.

In the Democratic Party, you're a superdelegate if you're a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15 percent of the total delegates that determine the nomination.

The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates.

The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that's the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.

Son of a bitch.

[TDale313]

38. Thanks. Fascinating. n/t

[retrowire]

40. Fascinating and annoying. Ugh. nt

[polemic_realism]

76. thanks! eom

[retrowire]

77. No problem! nt

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

99. Great to know that the Republican party is more democratic than the Democratic party

At least in this sense.

[stevenleser]

18. Their method of trying to prevent a brokered convention is to have a significant number of

winner take all states. The problem with that is it also can be unfair and undemocratic. Winning by one vote in those states will offset 20 point losses in all the rest and give you the nomination.

The point is to try to avoid a brokered convention because that almost always results in a loss for the party that has one.

[Vote2016]

4. grassroots bad. establishment good. change bad. status quo good.

[oldandhappy]

6. power!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. I am sure that Tad Devine would not characterize it that way. He was instrumental in creating the

Super Delegate system.

Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existance.

"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.

[wyldwolf]

10. oops

I might also remind some that 'fringe candidates' could come from the right, as well.

[demosocialist]

48. I dont care if Tad Devine is for it

still don't agree with superdelegates...

but wanted to reply to tell you I like the Steinbeck quote, made me lol as I was reading the responses... thank you

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. Yes, it made me LOL. I love it.

[72DejaVu]

8. If the Governor, Senator, Congressman, etc

run for delegate they will easily win, and keep rank and file Dems from being delegates. Take them out of the fix and more grassroots activists can get delegate slots.

[retrowire]

11. I dunno.

Ya know, I just got into politics because of Bernie. I've been in this game since he first announced.

As such, I made sure to educate myself on that Electoral College thing that everyone's talking about. I understand the ideal of the delegate distribution with the Electoral College, I also understand how that's bad too.

BUT, from what I've learned thus far, don't Superdelegates supercede the purpose of the Electoral College delegates? I mean, CLEARLY, Super Delegates can choose whoever they want. And judging by Howard dickhead Dean's tweets today, he doesn't HAVE to follow any constiuency as he said he's NOT an elected official as a Super Delegate and can choose who he feels is best.

So really... yeah. I'm not seeing a democratic justification for super delegates. no.

[FourScore]

57. Somewhere, Howard Dean lost his way. He was once great.

Now, he is just status quo, despite how terrible he has been treated by the Democratic Party establishment.

[retrowire]

58. money money money moneyyyyyy

MONEYYYY

[FourScore]

64. makes the world go around

[SusanCalvin]

63. It's really depressing. nt

[reformist2]

12. Superdelegates are actually a very REPUBLICAN idea.

Allowing representatives to make all the important decisions for us and all.

[jeff47]

15. Ironically, their party does not have superdelegates (nt)

[Aerows]

29. They do, actually

at least here in the South.

[jeff47]

39. Not really

The Republican Party does not have superdelegates, per se. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention that are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[Aerows]

51. So, they do.

I have no idea why you wish to argue with me about something we both acknowledge.

[jeff47]

85. It's a matter of scale, and who they are.

Republicans have a small enough number that they don't have a chance to change the outcome, and they aren't lobbyists.

[Aerows]

89. I'm still wondering what point you are trying to make.

A "matter of scale" is only relevant if your sample size is tiny, as opposed to a sample size that is within the thousands.

That is the point I was trying to make. Chance doesn't change the outcome if you have a sample size of enough variety to account for the pool of entities.

[jeff47]

103. My point is they make up ~10% of the delegates

so the chance they could "swing" a close primary is very small. Especially with the winner-take-all states in their primaries.

Even then, 100% of their delegates are in elected positions - party leaders. They can actually lose their position if they piss off the party membership.

On our side, a very large number of our superdelegates do not hold elected positions. Such as Howard Dean, who's now a Pharma lobbyist, and today said he did not care about the 86-13 win his state gave Sanders, he's still backing Clinton.

The Republicans fundamentally can not have the same Superdelegate problems as we can have.

[Aerows]

104. Well.

Damn.

That's rather a disappointing shower of rain facing us, isn't it?

[jfern]

115. I think they have just 15, so not quite true, but they're irrelevant.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. Tad Devine, Sanders top adviser, was instrumental in creating the system.

And championed it in 2008 when Candidate Obama criticized its existence.

[reformist2]

37. So what? Unlike Hillbots, we don't have to agree with everything Camp Bernie does or did.

[retrowire]

43. THIS. nt

[krawhitham]

45. +1

[Agnosticsherbet]

46. LOL....

[Metric System]

17. You should tweet Tad Devine and ask.

[krispos42]

19. It, in theory, prevents a Democratic version of a Trump.

In theory.

[TDale313]

25. Or, to be more accurate, to prevent a Bernie. n/t

[krispos42]

41. I think in practice it's more about making sure that Washington insiders...

...have more influence than regular people, which puts a bias into managing the status quo.

Stability is a double-edged sword.

[TDale313]

44. Which is exactly what Bernie is threatening. n/t

[krispos42]

47. Yeah. Which is why they're throwing behind Clinton.

She has the support of the powerful people that want minimal change.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. exactly. No grassroots candidates allowed.

[PWPippin]

20. Sorry. I can't.

Howard Dean has acknowledged in a tweet that super delegates don't represent people, that he wasn't elected by anyone and he'll do what he thinks is right for the country.

I was a Dean delegate in Maine. I think I'll have a ceremonial burning of the shirt I have from the campaign. Or, more appropriately "Berning".

By the way, I think caucuses are undemocratic, too. Voters can't keep their vote secret and may feel influenced to vote differently if bosses, neighbors, friends, family can know how they vote.

[JonLeibowitz]

54. Please videotape the Berning and post it here! Although, it might get hidden for being incendiary.

[Kittycat]

62. Be sure to send a video link to Dean when you do.

Damn. A delegate for him. Sorry, Pippin. You shouldn't have had to read what went down today, that was just sadness.

[SusanCalvin]

67. My thought -

Who are you, and what have you done with Dr. Dean????

[Aerows]

23. None. Even Republicans in my area are openly ranting about them, too

It has NO benefit to the American people. Everybody across the spectrum are absolutely pissed now that they have learned of how they operate.

[reformist2]

50. Superdelegates make us 'Democrats' look like hypocrites, and make our party a laughingstock.

[Aerows]

65. I think we will have greater weight against it

if we include Republicans that are also being unfairly had.

I am by no means a big ol' Republican supporter, but we ALL deserve fairness at the polls. The day that ceases to be true of my Democratic Party, is the day I'll leave it, too.

Fair voting should be the goal of folks on both sides, those in the middle, and everybody that even remotely cares about justice, fairness and prosperity under government.

[senz]

26. Why, to push Hillary through, of course!

Oh ... you wanted "honest" ... and ... "democratic" ...

Oh well.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. They all supported Obama at the nominating convention in 2008

And Tad Devine, Sanders adviser, was one its is chief creators.

[SusanCalvin]

69. So? Wrong is wrong. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

83. Sanders need only win a majority of pledged delegates.

I look forward to see how that turns out.

[SusanCalvin]

86. True, I hope.

If the superdelegates went against the winner, I hate to think.

I'm just sick of seeing them included in the totals now.

[silvershadow]

31. Without them, the insiders would have fewer levers to play with.

Without them, the insiders would have fewer plum jobs to reward lobbyists with for their "service".

[SusanCalvin]

70. Bingo. nt

[bravenak]

32. Here is Tad Devine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-soboroff/superdelegate-creator-tad_b_87857.html

[SusanCalvin]

75. I wish there was a transcript.

I seldom watch videos for factual information, as reading is so much faster.

From what I can glean from a couple links, yeah, some cognitive dissonance.

Still, wrong is wrong.

[bravenak]

81. I know

If I find one I'll let you know. He knows now that it was a bad idea but you know; rocks, hard places, lesser evils, etc.. I think more focus should be on holding both candidates to replacing DWS, she brings on extra scrutiny by how she operates. We can limit super delegates but what trust do the ranks have in her is a question that needs asking. I do not hate her but I think other than fundraising she is being selfish in her operations.

[SusanCalvin]

90. I repeat my pledge to vote for you, when and if!

Unless, of course, you do a Dr. Dean on me.... ;->

[bravenak]

94. We need our own island nation and some of trumps money

We'd do fine on that blue lagoon island. No need for a leader at all! We could just vote on everything.

Dean cant come.

[SusanCalvin]

96. Can you arrange this thing????

[bravenak]

97. -

I wish!!! My utopia!

[SusanCalvin]

100. Me too!

[Gwhittey]

101. Yes a Article about guy who was involved

In creation of it saying it was bad idea and we should reexamine it.

[bravenak]

102. Yes. He works for Bernie

[RedCappedBandit]

33. There isn't a democratic one - that's the point.

[MrMickeysMom]

49. A bridge from democracy to fascism, exemplified by people like this...

Think about it....

A good ole Democrat for whom I worked so hard, Howard Dean, became an insurance lobbyist, was quite happy at one time when he proudly announced himself to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"...

But, now, as one of VT's SuperDelegate, he's quite proud to announce that he will make up his OWN mind when considering the Democratic nominee... declared delegates or not.

Come on... Come right OUT with it... You think YOUR vote counts more (as it represents 10,000 votes in VT) and you now think that one vote, one count is not part of any Democratic process in which you'd be involved.

Hmmmm.... So, now we have a TRUE definition of what it means be the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

He's a fucking sell out fascist with this attitude. Fuck you, American voter. Money and influence in the insurance industry trumps democracy. And... Vermont can kiss his ass.

[SusanCalvin]

72. I don't know the man anymore. nt

[SusanCalvin]

60. There is none.

I'm OK with guaranteeing them attendance, but not a vote. It's ridiculous.

[noretreatnosurrender]

78. Me Too

If they want a vote tell them to vote in their Primary or Caucus like the rest of us. They shouldn't get 2 votes.

[BernieforPres2016]

73. There is no justification

It is a disgrace to democracy.

[Hoyt]

74. It's a little too late to whine about super delegates.

[SusanCalvin]

82. It's never too late, and it's not a whine. nt

[BernieforPres2016]

79. Right below the Superdelegate disgrace of the Democratic Party is the corporate media

which does not even question this farce. The corporate media is trying to advance this undemocratic process by regularly showing delegate counts that grossly inflate Hillary Clinton's lead. They don't even question the concept of handing Democratic Party insiders votes that are equal to the combined votes of 10,000 ordinary citizens.

[SusanCalvin]

95. YEP!!! nt

[Depaysement]

91. Honest?

They don't want the Left to win because when George McGovern and Walter Mondale ran they lost badly because they were the Left and because the Party needs money so it needs big donor and corporate cash to feed consultants because then the Party bigwigs get money when the leave elected office and it's nice to have money.

Whew.

[Thinkingabout]

92. Simple, to protect the DNC from hostile take over by another party.

[TheDormouse]

93. nobody puts a gun to your head and forces u to play along

But it does suck that our laws mandate that there be two primary parties.
That's a large part of our problem right there.


The only thing "democratic" about superdelegates is that some of them get their superdelegate status by having been elected by the voters in the first place (eg, governors, legislators).

[egduj]

98. To keep the comic con crowd interested.

[redstateblues]

105. Why isn't anyone throwing Tad Devine

Under the bus? Rather ironic that he created super delegates.

[southerncrone]

106. I can't. They seem to be the antithesis of democracy.